I build commander decks to do interesting things, tell stories, and to play a fun game with close friends. It is never about who won, but about the stories inside the game.

If you are playing a game for prize, doing everything within the rules of the game to win makes sense. If you are playing a game for fun with friends, doing everything within the rules of the game to help assure EVERYONE has fun and is a part of that fun makes sense. I have never understood why those to concepts blur to people past childhood.

If you really want a good casual format with people following the "social contract," you need to write the social contract down. After that, have a maximum deck price. (For sanity's sake, when calculating the price, use the cheapest version of a card for price.)

I don't think your definition of the social contract and most other people I have played with are the same.

I don't think making "No infinite combos" or "No MLD" part of the offical rules does anything but expand the ban list.

_________________

sir squab wrote:

My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>

I don't think your definition of the social contract and most other people I have played with are the same.

That's my entire. Damned. POINT. What players define as "playing casually" and what people think the "social contract" says varies from player to player.

What I'm saying is having whatever your group/LGS/whatever defines as the social contract in written form means players can actually try to follow it. Or they can see that it doesn't fit their playstyle and avoid a game they probably wouldn't have enjoyed.

Imagine you and me play a game, and I get pissed because you aren't following my social contract and what I think the spirit of commander is and what I think casual play is, because you're playing MLD and win the game with an infinite combo. You, meanwhile, are following what you think the social contract is, you're following what you think the spirit of the format is, and you're playing in a manner that you think is casual. Neither one of our definitions is wrong, they're just vastly different and we're each expecting the other player to follow their unwritten, unspoken rules.

On the other hand, if they're written down, when I sit down to play a game with you I know before the game starts that MLD is okay and infinite combos are okay. I go into the game knowing "for the purposes of this game, that sort of behavior is fair play." I'm reasonable enough to not get mad at that because, for this game (and this playgroup/LGS/whatever) it's fair play. Maybe I decide I never want to play with your playgroup/LGS/whatever again, but now I'm choosing not to play with you because we actually want to play different games.Or you're playing according to my "no MLD, no infinite combos" version of the social contract. Now you know to avoid decks that have that in it. Since my contract was explicitly spelled out to all players prior to the game (and if we're at a LGS event, prior to paying to join the event), if you don't like it you know well enough in advanced to simply avoid the event.Heck, maybe I see your rules about MLD being okay, infinite combos being okay, decide that I'm not okay with that and do something else that night.

I don't think your definition of the social contract and most other people I have played with are the same.

That's my entire. Damned. POINT. What players define as "playing casually" and what people think the "social contract" says varies from player to player.

What I'm saying is having whatever your group/LGS/whatever defines as the social contract in written form means players can actually try to follow it. Or they can see that it doesn't fit their playstyle and avoid a game they probably wouldn't have enjoyed.

Imagine you and me play a game, and I get pissed because you aren't following my social contract and what I think the spirit of commander is and what I think casual play is, because you're playing MLD and win the game with an infinite combo. You, meanwhile, are following what you think the social contract is, you're following what you think the spirit of the format is, and you're playing in a manner that you think is casual. Neither one of our definitions is wrong, they're just vastly different and we're each expecting the other player to follow their unwritten, unspoken rules.

On the other hand, if they're written down, when I sit down to play a game with you I know before the game starts that MLD is okay and infinite combos are okay. I go into the game knowing "for the purposes of this game, that sort of behavior is fair play." I'm reasonable enough to not get mad at that because, for this game (and this playgroup/LGS/whatever) it's fair play. Maybe I decide I never want to play with your playgroup/LGS/whatever again, but now I'm choosing not to play with you because we actually want to play different games.Or you're playing according to my "no MLD, no infinite combos" version of the social contract. Now you know to avoid decks that have that in it. Since my contract was explicitly spelled out to all players prior to the game (and if we're at a LGS event, prior to paying to join the event), if you don't like it you know well enough in advanced to simply avoid the event.Heck, maybe I see your rules about MLD being okay, infinite combos being okay, decide that I'm not okay with that and do something else that night.

I suppose that's how leagues define their point system, provided they randomize most good achievements (+points) and hold bad achievements (-points) steady.

_________________"I'd rather lose an awesome game than win a boring one."

What I'm saying is having whatever your group/LGS/whatever defines as the social contract in written form means players can actually try to follow it. Or they can see that it doesn't fit their playstyle and avoid a game they probably wouldn't have enjoyed.

That's a fine idea, except most people who have an issue don't have a group. If you are proposing everyone write down what they want, and then exchange those at the start of a game, fine. Thats the same as having a discussion which I like at the start of a game.

The problem with your scenario is when the written ideas clash. Who decides whats "OK" when I say 'No MLD' and you say 'MLD is fine'?

_________________

sir squab wrote:

My... history of buying Magic cards is probably a tapestry of bad financial decisions >_>

What I'm saying is having whatever your group/LGS/whatever defines as the social contract in written form means players can actually try to follow it. Or they can see that it doesn't fit their playstyle and avoid a game they probably wouldn't have enjoyed.

That's a fine idea, except most people who have an issue don't have a group. If you are proposing everyone write down what they want, and then exchange those at the start of a game, fine. Thats the same as having a discussion which I like at the start of a game.

The problem with your scenario is when the written ideas clash. Who decides whats "OK" when I say 'No MLD' and you say 'MLD is fine'?

How is that any worse then me playing a game and getting pissed at your for playing MLD, because I think it's against the spirit of the format and you think it's fine?

If you have this written down somewhere I can read before I join the game, I know what I'm getting into before the game, I can choose my deck accordingly, or have the option to not play.

I think we need to start at the beginning and realize that we are all playing a game and the point to playing a game is to win. Magic is no different. In every format of MTG the goal is to win and in order to win you have to build robust/focused competitive decks. If we can all agree then I will finally get to the point of this discussion…

Have to disagree with you. How many of those competitive win games do you remember? What about that one when you:

- hit an entire 4-man table with combat damage for exactsies both in separate turns and in a single turn in the same week of play?

- put every single opponent into negative life points with Abyssal Persecutor in play and still not win the game?

- won a game playing an artifact deck by stealing someone's Hellkite Tyrant and lost the very next game against the same player when he stole everything with the same Hellkite Tyrant?

- won with 0 cards in your library, hand and graveyard (all exiled with Rest in Peace & mill effects or in play) by attacking your sole remaining opponent for all but one life point and have him die to his own Phyrexian Arena on his upkeep?

- played In Garruk's Wake and Rise of the Dark Realms on the same turn getting a stack of devotion for Gray Merchant, Craterhoof and assorted Clones for +45 & haste for everything with Maelstrom Wanderer out of the deal?

- most importantly, had a ton of fun with friends, workmates and family playing Commander/EDH and have forgotten even more of the best bits that generally involved casual back-stabbing, word-breaking, grudge bearing, top-decking, terrible hand-keeping the somehow work out and, of course, the playing of Yawgmoth's Will into Entomb?

Commander is not the result, it's how epically that result was achieved regardless of who achieved it.

Most of these are pretty bad examples IMO. "Exactsies" can be done in any deck. I've seen it done on turn 3. Persecutor is a bad card. Hellkite Tyrant creates the same "feel bads" as all the examples people are already complaining about since it's a "you win" with little interaction. Once plays run into the 15+ mana situations you may as well just be playing with infinite mana.

It also suggests that you can't have similar examples with a stronger deck or some of the more risque plays.

The first time I dropped Kormus Bell with Urborg out in my Silumgar deck and then swung at everyone with swamp-dragons, the other players actually laughed and gave me props for a creative hard lock. That same play is one that I won't make in another group I play in because I know that group doesn't like land destruction (even when it quickly ends the game).

Epic plays tend to be epic regardless of the casual/competitive nature of the games. IMO a lot of "battlecruiser" cards actually remove a lot of the epic-ness of plays whether intended or not. I can't remember the last time I saw someone cast a kicked rites or an insurrection and thought "wow what an epic play". I can remember the time I made my opponent Force of Will their own Time Stetch with Teferi, out with a convenient Willbender. ...or the time I cloned a Cons Sphinx, warned the player not to go crazy and then Runeflare Trap'ed him out of the game when he didn't listen.

I stopped getting mad at players for playing the generic goodstuff or combo or whatever else that's supposedly against the "spirit of the format" or more realistically, against my "idea of fun". It's a whole lot easier and fun to just beat them with their own stuff.

My theory as to why it has increased is because of how much the format has grown. This has lead to increased power because you can now play commander with complete strangers, there is no power baseline, so people naturally will build the best decks they can. This then carries over into regular groups, making everyone more competitive. Yet most groups still have some things they frown on, albeit for varying reasons. I was recently pounded to an early death in a multiplayer game for playing Bloodchief Ascension, despite the fact that another player had Sylvan Library, one had tried to combo out with Relentless Rats, another had played Underworld Dreams, and the guy who was attacking me was doing so with Wurmcoil Engine Kiki-Jikki combo.

I would call it the epitome of what is wrong with the format, except that in my last game I managed to cast Tezzeret the Seeker on turn 2, which the Azami player responded to with Daze, so that would probably be the best example.

Note: This is a wall of text and I have used multiple spoiler tags to at least make the page not go for miles. This is a topic I've been giving a lot of though to as I've played across multiple groups and have seen the format evolve on the forums, the internet, the local game store and the kitchen table. At times it may seem preachy, it may seem holier than though or finger wagging. Let me preface this as OPINION. This is my Opinion, that means that my identity of who I am is what has constructed these thoughts as part of my conceptual paradigm of what the reality of Commander is. The likely hood of ANY of the below changing is very low, and will only be accomplished by multiple events and experiences organically being contrary to the below.

My commander experience, like everyone elses is unique. I've been in many, and created some different situations involving the format. I'll list them here to preface my thoughts on the situation.

1) In October 2010 I worked alongside a LGS to create a commander format with a point based league system. The league ran until the holidays that year, towards the end, players were dragging games to "time" to farm points, and colluding. A few players even created "bounty" decks to achieve as many points as possible. They didn't necessarily win, but they came out in a decent place in the league. The league had social based rules for adding and removing cards from the banned list via vote. The league never once took a vote, and seemed to "police itself". A particular game sticks out very strongly in my mind as we had a new player join the league midway (we had a catchup rule for players joining late.) proceeded to win on turn 5 in their pod, recieved 3 points, and then left claiming the league was not as competitive as he would have liked.

2) The above mentioned leagued splinterred into factions towards the end. The somewhat more competitve players remained at the shop. The more kitchen-table (I refuse to use the word casual at the moment.) joined up at a players house and continued there on the same night. This continued on for a while, and depending on my to-do list, would vary the group I would play at. At the shop, games would end usually in a "I guess this is where I win fashion." very rarely in a long drawn out, cut-throat kill you, then you, then finally you type fashion. The kitchen-table group would often times aquire spectators as they would become eliminated. There would often be five player games, and then this wierd cycle of 3 player games with two alternating spectators/guys fighting for 1st and 2nd. At the time, it was not what I expected at all.

3) The kitchen-table group from above splintered again, and I was able to see an interesting defining line. I shall refer to them as the "Haves" and the "Have Nots". Those who were willing to put forth money into their collection, get certain cards, and improve and hone their deck we shall call the "Haves." This group migrated towards the group playing at the shop, as they were socially shoved out. The "Have Nots" group included the indivudal who owned the kitchen table and were eventually relocated to the local pizza parlor a few of them worked at. I still continued to play in both groups, making sure my deck selection remained somewhat reasonable for each group. Both groups attendance would eb and flow, but usually somehwere between 4-12 players for each. One thing that stands out from the "Have Not" group was a player who despised counter spells to the point that if you played a counter spell against him, he would simply play "Draw, go." until you were tapped out and had no cards in hand. When playing a game with the individual, I simply chose not to play blue decks. It made for a much more enjoyable night.

4) I introduced my cousin and brother to the format in 2013, both had not played magic since around Odyssey block. The decks were very unfocused, the card collections shallow, craw giants and rune goldberg machines abounded not from desire to play the cards, but simply they were the best tools available. It reminded me at times of a man using a standard screw driver to secure a phillips screw. That year I bought my brother the Shatter Gang brothers deck as a gift. He proceeded to build a Sol'Kanar the Swamp King graveyard recursion monstrocity, while my cousin went and eventually built an Ysan, the Wanderer Bard deck. My wife introduced both to her Zedru Bad Santa deck and her Avacyn deck. Both decks were considerred unfair and brutal. A year later, my brother had built a Child of Alara Bear Hug with most of the staples, shocks and fetches, while my cousin was still building decks that reminded me of the Ice Age era of magic. They both play at a local shop and at the Kitchen table, and have a good time as they know what to expect in either environment.

5) Because I have played on Cockatrice and MTGO, I feel that those should get a small nod in all of this. Take Reddit and put it in a blender, then play MTG against them. That is the sum of the online "meta" or environment. The internet, IMO, requires the Social Contract of Commander more than anything, while also demanding to survive as an alternative to the LGS that you simply be able to pick up a game and play. My personal experience is that unless you're agoraphobic or live in BFE and have no way to play in a building with actual people that these methods should be avoided as I have yet to have an online "pickup" game that didn't have something poor happen during.

6) I've recently moved across the country and now play at a LGS in Atlanta. There is no real commander group per say. There are several players who have commander decks, and a 3-4 player game tries to form each Friday before FNM starts. In between games, some quick games try and form as well, but games here hardly finish unless they become 1v1. The players who I would see as the core of this group seem to be very battlecruiser, goldfish oriented. Most don't have any graveyard answers, typically run 1 for 1 answers, with very few sweepers. Over-extension is rampant and mana ramp / quick color fixing seems to be almost frowned upon. I've never seen such odd looks from a turn one Urborg Tomb of Yawgmoth to Entomb for Riftstone Portal before. (Playing Karador against Lazav and Krenko that game.). The most surpising occurence in this group was probably the turn 4 Wildfire that the table simply accepted. Very much like Vega (Bison) from The Street Fighter movie considered the gruesome slaughter of Chun-Li's village as simply Tuesday. I must admit, I flinched when the board state went bascially back to turn one. But that happens in some games.

So, with those out of the way, and with giving this a lot of thought....

I think the spirit of commander is still very true to it's roots. However, I do think that your player base for your group, and their magic beginnings is going to largely determine what the "roots" indicate.

When I sit down with a new group to play commander, I tend to ask a few questions that are helpful to me to make a quick assessement. I find out when the players started playing, if they play any thing competitive, and if they've ever taken a break from the game. This interestingly enough puts together a very quick profile of the group.

If they don't play competitvely, then they're more apt to be kitchen table players, non-net deckers, and very underpowered decks. If they took a break during Urza's Block or Shards block, they probably have a general disdain for combos or all the value type decks. If they've been playing since Lorwyn/Shards, then mass land destruction is something they probably have little problem with as mana denial was considerred a fair and viable way to attack the format, while if they played starting around Tempest it's generally frowned upon as it was considerred a cowards way of fighting by the general consensous.

I use that information to decide which deck to open with, and proceed from there. You have to, as the player base for this game spans 5 decades of generations in a game that's only been around for 20 years. Each player, will largely have their own experience and thought of what magic is, much like the three blind men stumbling across the elepehant, or the common psychological puzzle of how the first born, middle child and youngest child view their childhoods as being raised in completely different families.

The roots to commander, for me, is to play a game where you have 100 cards, singleton, with one legendary creature being accessible at all times. The format should be played in a multiplayer environment, table talk should be encouraged, and pet cards should make an appearance. If a game is played where at least one card doesn't cause several other players to ask to read the text or have the text read, then something went awry.

I play any and all archetypes. Not equally, as the archetypes require varying level of skill, but I beleive in magic if you dislike playing against something, you should at least give it a shot from the other side of the table. You may surprise yourself at what will work against it, or how it really plays.

The word casual being applied to commander is pure bullshit as the format is not casual. You can have casual sex, you can drive around and find a casual place to eat, you can can even have a party with casual dress. The main reason you can do these, is becuase the word casual generally means the action or word described has no real definined rules or expectation to have any type of strings attached, nor any specific period of commitment needed.

If you sit down to play a "casual" game of "Commander/EDH", you've done it wrong. Let me re-iterate this one more time...If you sit down to play a "casual" game of "Commander/EDH", you've done it wrong.

Casual Commander is an oxymoron. The very definition of Commander conflicts with the definition of Casual.The defiition of Casual means as you are, with no expectations. One of the principle defining characteristics of Commander is the Social Contract.

One can even argue that the Precons have a Social Contract established with them. The expected contract is that the five decks were playtested, balanced, listed out and determined to be of the same power level to yield a positive and entertaining experience amongst a table of 3+ players. Even then, if you're the only player playing the green pre-con and your 3 opponents are playing the black precon it may not feel that way.

So, in closing and for those in the tl;dr crowd:

Commander is eternal, always has been eternal, and will remain eternal as long as you follow the Philosophy of the format. To the OP, if you feel the spirit is eroding, then you're not following the Philosophy. As I'm sure the players you make mention to, and the decks you make mention to are either a) ones being played in a group who find then decks acceptable, or b) those played in a group who dont' find them acceptable, and didn't do any type of social interaction outside of shuffle, roll dice, draw cards and play magic.

I read your entire post, moraff, and I don't quite understand the point you're making. You mention "following the Philosophy" but don't spell out what that Philosophy is. In my OP I quoted Sheldon as he posted in 2012; that's been my baseline, though I may have misinterpreted it.

And me feeling the spirit is eroding/being replaced means I'm not playing Commander anymore? Well, that is what I was thinking to being with... I'm too much of a relic.

_________________"I'd rather lose an awesome game than win a boring one."

From the front page of this very website, the one that most of us found the format with:

Quote:

PhilosophyCommander is designed to promote social games of magic.It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.

House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.

It just seems that too many people sit down to play magic with a unique set of rules and a banned list, and not Commander. If you eliminate the social aspect, and just look around at a random group of people and say "Commander?" and they reply with "Sure." then you've missed the point. Maybe you're not a relic, but maybe you've not been playing commander?

At times, what I see of commander on the forums feels like people are eating cup ramen and thinking it's real ramen.